The jurisdiction of contempt is unaffected by pending review petitions, and a contempt petition can be maintainable before the Single Judge even if the order has been affirmed by the Division Bench.

This petition has been filed for initiating a proceeding of contempt against the opposite parties for alleged violation and disobedience of order dated 25.06.2012 by which this Court allowed CWJC No.9625 of 2010, quashed the impugned order of the Government of Bihar dated 06.11.2009 as well as the decision of the Board of Directors of Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘BSMDC’ for the sake of brevity) dated 19.03.2010 and gave the following directions:-

(i) Respondent no.5 is also directed not to give effect to its decision dated 04.05.2011 which suffers from the effects of lis pendens and according to respondent no.5 itself no step had been taken by the authorities in furtherance thereof.

(ii) Furthermore, respondent nos.1 and 2 are directed to forthwith enter into Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) with the petitioner in terms of the bid document issued by respondent no.1 vide Annexure-3 and as per the draft prepared by respondent no.2 and duly accepted by the petitioner vide letter dated 07.12.2009 and issue Letter of Intent in respect of the petitioner’s duly accepted highest bid submitted against the bid document which was a concluded, binding and legally enforceable contract which has already come into existence by and between the petitioner and respondent no.1 in relation to the subject coal block project.

(iii) Respondents nos. 3 and 4 are also directed to pave the way for respondent no.1 to enter into and to incorporate a Joint Venture Company (JVC) with the petitioner in a time bound manner for the exploration, development, mining and selling of coal from the subject coal block in terms of the Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association already prepared by respondent no.2 and duly accepted by the petitioner vide letter dated 07.12.2009

2. Against the aforesaid judgment of this Court, respondent no.1 and respondent nos. 3 and 4 filed separate Letters Patent Appeal bearing L.P.A.No.1117 of 2012 and L.P.A. No.1176 of 2012 respectively which were heard together by a Division Bench of this Court which was pleased to dismiss both the appeals vide order dated 30.08.2012 with the following observations:-

“We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Without interfering with the reliefs granted to the writ petitioner we make it clear that if some minor creases remain to be ironed out, the concerned parties will do so by a reasonable procedure and by agreement. In the result, the appeals are dismissed but there shall be no order as to cost. Before parting with the order we clarify that if respondent no.2 to the writ petition, the Consultant to the corporation has already fulfilled all its obligations then it will not be required do any thing further.”

3. The said order of the Division Bench was not challenged by the respondents before the higher court and even the limitation for filing Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court expired in November, 2012 and hence order of this Court dated 25.06.2012 passed in CWJC No.9625 of 2010 attained finality.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that thereafter the petitioner moved before the Chief Secretary, Bihar on several occasions including 21.11.2012 and 12.01.2013 and hence when nothing was done by the authorities in compliance of the order of this Court the petitioner was constrained to file this contempt petition on 06.02.2013.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent nos.3 and 4 in their show cause specifically admitted non-compliance of the order of this Court and did not even deny the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the respondents. He further submitted that the doctrine of merger did not affect the jurisdiction of contempt of the learned Single Judge which had decided the original case, namely writ petition, by a clear order which was merely affirmed by the Division Bench.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner averred that filing of a petition for review of the o